Mickey Kaus: You Cannot Write Critically About Fox News at The Daily Caller

Blogger quits Tucker Carlson's conservative news site after having an anti-Fox piece yanked


Looooooongtime political blogger Mickey Kaus abruptly left his perch at The Daily Caller this week after having an item criticizing Fox News taken down by Editor in Chief Tucker Carlson. Here's how Kaus explains the series of events to Politico:

"I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty—for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration…. I posted it at 6:30 in the morning. When I got up, Tucker had taken it down. He said, 'We can't trash Fox on the site. I work there.'"

Carlson, who co-founded The Daily Caller in 2010, is a conservative contributor to Fox News and the host of its weekend edition of "Fox & Friends."

Kaus says when he told Carlson he needed to be able to write about Fox, Carlson told him it was a hard-and-fast rule, and non-negotiable.

"He said it was a rule, and he wouldn't be able to change that rule. So I told him I quit[.]"

Carlson told Politico "I'm sorry to see him go."

Carlson's noisy (and controversial) aspiration to build an institution on an equal journalistic footing as The New York Times would appear to be abandoned. Put another way, what kind of holy hell would The Daily Caller subject The New York Times to if one of the paper's star columnists was censured for criticizing MSNBC?

Kaus is a friend of mine; Carlson a friendly acquaintance. I also used to work at Fox (and still appear on its airwaves, including twice yesterday), and obviously edit a magazine, so have a couple of thoughts after the jump.

1) Don't hire Mickey Kaus if you don't want your own side criticized. As Nick Gillespie pointed out in the introduction to his 2010 interview with the then-senatorial candidate, "Mickey Kaus' position within the national public policy discussion has always been that of a tweak-your-own-side contrarian." Kaus is also idiosyncratic and monomaniacal (particularly on the underlying subject of immigration, about which I disagree with him)…and all of these things have been well known about the guy for going on two decades now.

2) Fox generates fear of criticizing Fox, and not just among its employees. Kaus portrays this as a kind of monopolistic career-gatekeeper problem:

"It's a larger problem on the right: Everybody is scared of Fox," he said. "Fox is their route to a high-profile public image and in some cases stardom. Just to be on a Fox show is a big deal. And I think that's a problem on the right, Fox's monopoly on star-making power."

I'm not as convinced about the "monopoly" there, and in the specific case Carlson has worked all over the broadcast spectrum. But as this entertaining piece by the late New York Times media critic David Carr illustrates, Fox's Media Relations department, uniquely within the industry (as far as I have ever heard), is notorious and unsettling even to people who have zero aspirations of ever working for or appearing on Fox television programming.

For what it's worth, I never heard a peep from Media Relations during my 15 months of drawing paychecks there and writing/editing here. And there is no disputing that the collection of business practices over in that building have produced the biggest sustained successes in the industry by far.

Gillespie's 2010 interview with Mickey Kaus below:

Michael C. Moynihan interviewed Tucker Carlson for Reason TV in 2010 as well:

NEXT: A.M. Links: Netanyahu Reelected, Obama Sets New Record on Censoring Government Files, Presbyterian Church Allows Gay Marriage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why didn’t serial liar Bill O’Reilly get the Brian Williams treatment?

    Because the buck-toothed yokels that watch Fox News don’t care about credibility.

    1. Maybe because Brian Williams was a News Anchor and Bill O’Reilly is not?

      1. Billy interprets the news for “the folks”. He needs cred for that.

        News anchors just read from the teleprompter.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.18.15 @ 10:52AM|#

          Turd lies. That’s what turd does.

        2. News anchors just read from the teleprompter.

          Except that’s not what Williams got in trouble for, buttplug.

          1. If someone had told a progressive a few years ago, that oreily and Williams, were equivalent, they would have been reduced to sputtering rage.

            This is hilarious.

    2. Apparently you don’t read or watch CNN.

    3. Oh, just maybe because OReilly isn’t a liar. Like you are, for example.

  2. OT: But more importantly, Ashley Judd is going after internet trolls who spew “gender violence”. Good luck with that, Derpley,…..-1.2152519

    1. Is it “gender violence” the she had to kiss Dick Vitale?

      1. That was just….disturbing

    2. She misspelled ‘free speech’.
      “It’s so unfaaaiiirrrrr! I wan’t my sports trash talk to go only one way!!!!”

      1. Hate Speech? isn’t free speech, Steve! Someone called her a “c____”. A CUNT! That’s damned near a threat to murder her! These near threats are real, Steve!

        Why do you hate womyn, Steve?

      2. Did she misspell “want” too?

        1. oh hell..

    3. The same Ashley Judd that Democrats were giddy at the prospect of challenging Mitch McConnell or Rand Paul for a Kenucky Senate seat.

      1. Democrats were so giddy they went out and found another candidate.

        1. Who then lost, of course.

        2. She declined to challenge McConnell, after which they rallied around Grimes.

          1. She declined AFTER Bill Clinton recruited Grimes for Harry Reid.

            1. And promptly lost.

    4. She’s still pretty damn hot for 46, but after awhile we might have to talk about something

  3. Put another way, what kind of holy hell would The Daily Caller subject The New York Times to if one of the paper’s star columnists was censured for criticizing MSNBC?

    Like someone at one of those papers would do that.

    1. Yeah, I snorted when I read that.

  4. Carlson’s ass is still sore from the buttfucking he got from Jon Stewart on Crossfire back in 2004.

    1. That’s a century ago in media years.

      1. 7 centuries in dog years!

        1. Media hound years?

    2. Except that in any objective world Carlson won that exchange.

      Challenged to say something funny the supposed comic responsed- I’m not your monkey. Pathetic.

      1. What?

      2. Yeah he won the fuck out of that exchange Sam:

        CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you’re accusing us of partisan hackery?

        STEWART: Absolutely.

        CARLSON: You’ve got to be kidding me. He comes on and you…


        STEWART: You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.


        STEWART: What is wrong with you?

        (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well, I’m just saying, there’s no reason for you — when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy’s butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It’s embarrassing.

        STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far — you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.


        1. Which is exactly why Carlsons response was so perfect. Ok mr idignant start making some jokes. Oh wait you don’t have any.

  5. Maybe Tucker Carlson thought it was so obvious it didn’t need to be said, but that’s a pretty shitty way to run a company. If it’s a hard and fast rule and a condition of employment, you should tell people before they’re hired.

    Fox probably doesn’t appreciate being made to look like the bad guy, here, either. Far as we know, they didn’t have anything to do with this.

    “I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty — for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration.”

    Wanting Fox to emphasize opposition to immigration and amnesty over ISIS is pretty light criticism. The Independents went a hell of a lot farther than that–and that was on Fox’s own airwaves.

    1. “The Independents went a hell of a lot farther than that–and that was on Fox’s own airwaves.”

      What time does that air? I would like to see that show.

      1. To be perfectly honest, my only exposure to Fox News is by way of The Independents clips I saw, linked from here at Hit & Run.

        If they didn’t like the way The Independents differed from the party line, they seem to have tolerated that deviation for a long time.

        Seems to me they decided to go with a less cerebral approach. In football broadcasting, there are two basic kinds of color guys. No, not “colored guys”–color guys! One type is all about the x’s and o’s–he’s usually a recently retired coach. The other type is a big personality, who may no longer be able to tell the difference between a counter trey and a hole in the ground.

        Seems to me they went with more of a personality/less cerebral approach.

        Anyway, judging from that, Fox seemed to tolerate more deviation from the standard line than Carlson is tolerating. Maybe the difference is that Kaus was calling Fox out by name. Maybe it’s one thing to talk about ideas and another to call Fox News out by name.

        1. Fox News may be biased toward the right side of the spectrum but when you are as far left as everything else that looks like a seismic shift.

          Honestly, the genius that is Fox News is that they just look at the obvious. A lot of people in the country lean right and there isn’t a news network that speaks to them…

          On the other hand, the progtard loons that dominate the other news networks just double down on their zealotry. Proof of their own irrationality.

          1. The other thing is that the way media outlets are biased is mostly in the stories they choose not to cover. The media just refuses to cover stories that make the Democrats look bad or if they are forced to cover such stories cover them in some boring horseshit “look at how they are fighting in Washington” way. So this leaves Fox a shitload of interesting stories they can cover without any competition. Then the major media looks on in horror when Fox cleans up in the ratings. Well, you fuckers ignored a ton of stories that would have generated viewership and they didn’t. What did you think was going to happen?

            1. Correcting for a perceived political bias in other outlets is not journalism. The problem with FOX is that its viewers become less informed than they were before, and less informed than if they consumed no news at all. Since it fails so spectacularly at actual journalism, we must appreciate it for what it is: a propaganda mouthpiece for a political party.

              1. So, Tony doesn’t like Fox News, too?

                Wow, this really has been an educational thread.

                Between Palin’s Buttplug and Tony, I feel like I’ve really learned something here today!

              2. Yeah Tony, you don’t like Fox News and have all sorts of irrational and delusional reasons for feeling that way.

                So your views on Fox News are pretty like your views on every other subject; irrational and hate filled in some bizarrely partisan way. Let me get my surprised face.

              3. Hey look everybody! Tony’s here with his considerable debating skills. Wait, no, it’s just a series of irrational claims with no support.

              4. That’s gold, Tony. You see a threat and instead of responding rationally you just double down on irrationality, complete with a healthy dose of condescension.

                If the progbots that run CNN were smart, were rational actors, they would look at the success of Fox News and respond with their own network that targets the same audience. Instead, they double down – proving that they are irrational reactionaries that can only view the world as all other liberals view it, as they wish it were and not how it is.

                1. FOX’s “success” relies on the fact that it is the single news outlet for conservative Americans, about 30% of news consumers. Everyone else gets their news from one or more of the networks and cable outlets. This is to be expected, of course, since part of the message of FOX is that the entire rest of journalism is a liberal conspiracy and you should definitely not pollute your mind by watching anything else.

                  1. Links aren’t just for the morning and evening posts, friend.

              5. Tony, I despise you. You are an atheistic, liberal, gay troll who contributes nothing to society especially this page.

                1. Are those adjectives supposed to have negative connotations?

              6. Tony — Do yo have any actual examples of Fox failing “so spectacularly at actual journalism”?

                Didn’t think so.

          2. I always thought the Rupert right-shift was about the stance British Commonwealth tabloids have to take.

            If you’re going to cover news in a sensationalist way, you need the moral opprobrium people on your side.

            It’s like Warren Buffet and the left. Make yourself look like you’re on the side of the progressives, and they tend to leave you alone.

            If you’re going to be a tabloid, you need to be on the side of the people that used to go after tabloids for the smut they print. That seems to have been Rupert’s business model everywhere he went.

            Sell smut from the perspective of the right, and the people the right (in Australia, the UK, or America), who used to go after media for selling smut, will climb all over themselves trying to defend you.

          3. “Honestly, the genius that is Fox News is that they just look at the obvious. A lot of people in the country lean right and there isn’t a news network that speaks to them..”


            Just like a vast population sat around watching televangelists and donating money…and watching (and being addicted to) the Home Shopping Network, etc…..

            People need someone who speaks to them…..for profit!

            1. The so-called genius of FOX is they don’t have any competition coming from the right. They’re the only one speaking to the choir. If there was another right leaning outlet, they would be splitting the audience and therefore FOX wouldn’t be “leading” in the ratings. Then FOX would probably actually get rid of the intellectually challenged O’Reilly — who I swear must only be getting the over 65 audience. Who else can stand him?

      2. The March issue of reason still has a full-page ad for The Independents.

        What gives, Matt?

        1. Either TOO SOON or simply too late.

    2. This is something closer to an Emperor’s New Clothes moment.

      Many, many people like to pretend that Fox New strongly represents the conservative zeitgeist.

      But in reality Fox is much closer to the establishment zeitgeist, especially so in the context of immigration.

      Everyone from the establishment center and all points leftward would have you believe that Fox is the voice of “the right.” Anything that might tend to dispute that notion is a threat to far too many apple carts, and certainly not something the likes of a Tucker Carlson can abide.

  6. Klaus is a liberal. He still thinks Obamacare was a good idea, no kidding. He is also very anti open borders, which is a position shared by many conservatives. The collumn in question called out Fox for being a bunch of amnesty shills, which they pretty much are. And Carlson, being a Fox News stooge, killed it.

    The lesson of all this, beyond what a pathetic no account climber Carlson is, is that Fox News despite what its deranged liberal critics claim isn’t that fucking conservative. It is a combination of latest dead white girl tabloid, establishment Republican shilling, and groups of people screaming at each other. How anyone above Shreek and Tony level intelligence could watch Fox News for more than five minutes and think it is some kind of conservative or right wing propaganda network is beyond me.

    1. Fox News is a full-time mouthpiece for the GOP designed to help them win elections. Issues don’t matter to them.

      1. Obamabot views on Fox News are fascinating to someone, I’m sure.

        Now, tell us, what do you think of Sarah Palin?

        1. I really used to enjoy ‘Firing Line’. Buckley took a serious view of issues and invited real debate there.

          That does not happen on Fox News.

          1. Are you saying there was no real debate on the Independents? Or there is no real debate on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace?

            I call bullshit on that statement.

          2. So you’re saying you DON’T like Fox News?!

            Wow. This conversation is getting really interesting.

            Now, tell us, how do you feel about Ronald Reagan?

            1. I voted for Reagan in 84 until I started voting LP.

              As far as Chris Wallace – he does ask some tough questions and my cable provider never carried Fox Business so I never saw the Independents.

              1. Fascinating.

                1. Its really off its meds today Ken. More incoherent and mendacious than even usual. That Bibi win must have really gotten to him. Looks like he threw away his meds and boosted a couple of forties and just doesn’t care anymore.

                  1. The progbot can’t stand that an entire nation of sovereign citizens dared vote against it’s view of the world and how Top. Men. say it should have voted.

                    It’s like HAL 9000. It can’t square the lies in its programming with how the real world is, and it goes haywire.

                    1. “I’m sorry, Restoras, I am afraid I can’t do that”

                    2. +1 Pod Bay Door

          3. No you didn’t, you are a lying liberal. Probably a communist! Get off this page!

    2. Kaus is a liberal – but one I respect. I can imagine hanging out with him, drinking a few beers, and having a rather good conversation about fixing the ills of the world.

      1. I can imagine hanging out with him, drinking a few beers

        Well, he could be President, then. Cause – beer test.

      2. What if I told you he drinks O’Douls?


          Not that there’s anything wrong with that….

        2. nooooo

        3. That just means you can’t trust him Matt. Never trust a teetotaler.

          1. You know who else was a teetotaler…

            1. Carrie Nation?

              1. Including John the Baptist? I wonder…

                1. Nah, word is John enjoyed a quaff or two with his locusts and honey.

          2. I could trust a teetotaler. But I’m not sure I could trust one who hid it behind fake beer.

      3. Yeah. He is one of the few remaining sane ones. Mostly liberals are people like shreek, low intelligence, poor grasp of reality, but trying to make up for it by being angry. Klaus is willing to face up to the conflict between an open border and the welfare of the working poor and between endlessly powerful public sector unions and anything but a bankrupt government. Most of his compatriots are literally shreek level delusional and too far gone to understand the conflicts and contradictions within their own ideology.

        1. Liberals like Shriek and Tony simply have the same zeal of the converted that people who adopt any religion in the hopes that it will provide answers with all that they see wrong in the world. It’s not that they are stupid – it’s that they are totally irrational. They refuse to see the world as it is and instead view it as they wish it to be. When the world continues to go on as it has and does not conform to how they wish it to be, being irrational thinkers, they just lose they’re shit. Just look at Shriek today – the people of another country went and did something that goes against his view of the world as it should be and he has totally lost his mind about it.

          1. Pretty much that except that Shreek really is that stupid. As you point out, it doesn’t really matter. The ideology would make him stupid even if he wasn’t already.

    3. Bill O’Reilly is a meanie conservative poopy head. And he IS Fox News.


    4. “..establishment Republican shilling,…”

      That sums FOX up pretty well right there. I tried to turn it on this morning and see what the headlines were. 30 seconds and one “Fuck that” later I turned it off.

    5. FOX News is just another network agitating for bigger government. That it wants the government to bloat in different areas than MSNBC does is irrelevant.

      1. It’s tolerable because, and really only because, it shills for the party currently out of power.

        MSNBC and the like are intolerable for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because their primary preoccupation is papering over the manifold failures of this administration.

  7. Fox News does have pretty girls in colorful dresses though. They do that real well.

    1. The bench for attractive conservative women who are willing to wear short dresses/skirts on tv is pretty deep. Not so much so on the liberal side.

      1. Women are like flowers. They’re all beautiful in their own way.

        The way Rachel Maddow is “beautiful” goes all the way to the bone.

        1. Skull fuck?

        2. She’s just differently beautied.

    2. Everyone knows that there is an inverse relationship between female attractiveness and intelligence. That is yet more proof that Fox is for idiots. Only an idiot would listen to pretty girls.


    Also, fried chicken

  9. Maybe I’m missing something, but the best conclusion I can draw here is that the bad guy here is Carlson more than Fox. That is to say, it’s entirely possible that the worst that would happen is that Fox would give Carlson a little pushback and let it go. And rather than taking the pushback in stride, Carlson preemptively folded.

    1. I have no reason to suspect Fox did anything here.

      1. Me – I blame Bush*


      2. I have no reason to suspect Fox did anything here.

        That seemed to be my impression from the story. As I said, it sounds like the guy in the wrong here is Carlson. My guess is that he anticipated that this would make him less popular with the management at Fox (and, honestly, I doubt they’re that thin skinned), and he put the kibosh to the story.

    2. I think it’s generally a safe bet that Carlson is the bad guy in most situations

      List of people you should never trust

      1. People who don’t drink(mentioned above)

      2. People who wear bow ties.

      3.Black guy with straight hair.

      4. White guy with frizzy hair.

      5. Any politician ever.

      This list is by no means conclusive.

      1. Something about Carlson, probably the bow tie, always screamed bullshit artist. I have never quite trusted him or liked him. But pretty much every “pundit” or talking head, which Carlson claims to be, is a bullshit artist who will say or do anything for a career.

        1. Bowtie and DC hairdo; that’s all he’s ever been about.

      2. N. Smiling too fucking much.

  10. ” And there is no disputing that the collection of business practices over in that building have produced the biggest sustained successes in the industry by far.”

    In case the wind turns ( audiences that don’t want or need sensational hate mongering news) in a different direction, you just might be a good investment. I’m rooting for you. I’m not disputing good common sense either 🙂

    They know how to play to a particular audience, I’ll give them that.

  11. If true….I still don’t give a shit. Like I didn’t know anything from Tucker Carlson was TEAM RED shipping. Kaus – meh.

    To me 1) criticizing Fox for not carrying water on your pet issue is a pretty stupid thing to get upset about, BUT, if you want to write about it 2) it seems like a SUPER douchey thing to pull.

    So fuck both Kaus and Carlson, but Carlson a little bit more.

    1. I gotta stop drinking so much so early in the day….”TEAM RED shipping” = TEAM RED shilling” for today. Gracias….

      1. I figured you meant “shipping” in the fanfiction since, like Carlson was writing stories about being in romantic relationships with various GOP politicians.

        1. That would be pretty awesome. Perhaps I should not have made the correction….we’ll never know…

          1. Just be your fucking wonderful self and shut up… 😉

        2. Of course you would know that. What’s your fanfic wank material? Shipping Wesley and the various captains of ST canon?

  12. Kaus is a friend of mine

    A friend of mine or a friend of ours?

  13. Just to be on a Fox show is a big deal. And I think that’s a problem on the right, Fox’s monopoly on star-making power.”

    Man ain’t this the truth. I wouldn’t know anything about Fox News if it weren’t for Shrike.

  14. Maybe Reason could pick Mickey up?


    1. And listen to Kaus criticize Reason’s stance on immigration all day? No thanks!

      1. Cage match – Kaus and Dalmia?

    2. Replace Richman with Kaus and I’m all over that.

      1. Richman fails to see the difference between Mickey Kaus and Klaus Barbie.

  15. So he wrote a piece criticizing for Fox not being anti-immigration enough? And Carlson didn’t like it? Then he quit to go… elsewhere?

    That is weird.

    1. Then he quit to go… elsewhere?

      National Review?

  16. I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty — for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration

    So the problem here is that Kaus is mad that Fox isn’t dedicating enough time (which equals money) to his personal bugaboo, so he writes a blog about it on somebody else’s site. The owner of that site says “I don’t want that on my site because REASONS.” Kaus gets mad and quits.

    I’m having trouble seeing Fox News’ villain role in this.

    1. Honestly, the criticism sounds ridiculous. Fox News has a *responsibility* to adopt the same position on immigration that Kaus has, and then to push that position over ISIS and terrorism? Judging by Kaus’ writings Fox could devote 80% of their airtime to immigration and that wouldn;t be enough for him.

      It sounds like there were good reasons to spike the column, then Carlson came up with crappy reasons (don’t blaspheme the almighty Fox).

  17. Tucker always struck me as perfect for cable TV which is why I never watch him.

    1. When I want to know what happened on Fox the night before, I just read Shrike’s comments.

      1. Fox News isn’t really very slanted to the right, as just about every non-ideologue has noticed by now. It’s their commentary that’s right-wing. Frankly, the news group seems less biased politically than just about any other television news, though I’m damning with faint praise.

        1. Yep, that is true. Though the Progs will tell you that even covering the fake scandals was media bias cause there guys didn’t, so better.

  18. Why are names like Cheryl Atkinson and Bernard Goldberg coming to mind?

  19. Tucker Carlson is a pretentious twat.

  20. Thanks. That’s interesting. I had no idea that Fox had that kind of influence or that people were scared of it. I consider Fox news to be a second-rate news site.

    1. Fox isn’t influencing anything. Carlson’s the bad guy here.

    2. What do you consider to be a first rate news site?

    3. Oh, but the alphabet soup networks (abc/cbs/nbc/cnn), THEY are just groovy. THEY are the ticket.

      I suppose you miss Walter Cronkite, too.

  21. Why would anyone watch Fox news? I don’t and never have. I don’t watch any other network newscast either.
    I get my news from real news sites on the Internet.

  22. Carlson’s noisy (and controversial) aspiration to build an institution on an equal journalistic footing as The New York Times would appear to be abandoned.

    Ummm, no, I actually think this is a step toward putting The Daily Caller on “equal journalistic footing” with the NYT.

    Conflict of interest affecting editorial and hiring decisions? check.

    Narrowing the ideological appeal of the publication? check

    Hell, this is probably getting him onto equal footing with the BBC, which just got rid of by far its most popular personality for not conforming to the hive mind.

  23. Fox News didn’t have anything to do with this. Fox News doesn’t care. Tucker Carlson is a borderline buttwipe. Matt did a fine job covering the entire story, but it must be a slow news day. The Independents was the best thing Fox has ever done. Kennedy on FBN is fine, but The Independents with Matt and Kmele was even better. If Carlson had half a brain he’d allow criticism of himself, The Daily Caller, and Fox News, (even though it’s understandable that he’d prohibit direct criticism of The Daily Caller to be written/published on the Daily Caller itself), Fox News should be fair game. C’mon Tucker!

    1. The Independents.

      /wipes tear from eye. Gingerly touches poster of Matt.

  24. Tucker Carlson was, is, and will forever be a complete non-factor and a total asshole.

  25. At least the Koch’s allow you to write about anyone critically with their money (except them, of course!).

    To even suggest that Tucker is anything other than a paid shill for far-right money interests….is quite silly. He’d come to work for me if I paid him 5 million a year….and propagate my Democratic Socialist ideals…..

  26. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….


  27. So how come Kaus never knew about the don’t criticize Fox rule? Avoiding Fox criticism wouldn’t seem to be the hardest thing Kaus ever had to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.